Judgment S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. BEFORE admission notices were issued. Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. THIS petition is directed against two orders passed by the revisional court dated 17-4-1986. The property in dispute is a residential property. Since there was a vacancy, respondent No. 2 applied for release of the accommodation. The petitioner made an application for allotment of the accommodation. The District Supply Officer, Meerut rejected the release application and thereafter allotted the premises in question to the petitioner. The release application was rejected on 12-10-1983 and on the same day the property was allotted to the petitioner. Aggrieved against both these orders dated 12-10-1983 the landlord bled two revisions being revision Nos. 518 of 1983 and 519 of 1983 in the court of District Judge, Meerut. Both these revisions came up for hearing before the VIIth Addl. District Judge, Meerut who by separate orders allowed both the revisions and remanded the matter to the District Supply Officer, Meerut with a further direction to him to return the applications of the applicants for presentation to the proper court. These orders were passed on 17th April, 1986 which have been impugned in the present petition. 3. I have perused the orders passed by the District Supply Officer, Meerut. In the order there is no specific mention about the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner, but in any case the counter affidavit was on record and it does appear that it must have had its own effect when the Prescribed Authority heard the matter. In Talib Husain v. 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, 1985 AWC 1001 FB a Full Bench of this court has held that the prospective allottee has no right to file objection against the release application. In view of this dictum of the court, the petitioner who was a prospective allottee could not have filed the counter affidavit to the release application and he was wrongly permitted to do so. The counter affidavit consequently cannot be considered while considering the release application of the landlord-respondent. 4. THE revisional court had, infact, mainly remanded the case because he was of the opinion that the District Supply Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the case as the rent of the premises in dispute was more than Rs. The counter affidavit consequently cannot be considered while considering the release application of the landlord-respondent. 4. THE revisional court had, infact, mainly remanded the case because he was of the opinion that the District Supply Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the case as the rent of the premises in dispute was more than Rs. 50/- per mensem in this connection it is not disputed that the District Supply Officer, Meerut was authorised to decide the cases of properties which had rental value upto Rs. 50/- per mensem. THE property having rental value of more than Rs. 50/- per mensem were to be decided by the Additional District Magistrate according to the authorisation made by the District Magistrate, Meerut. In the instant case, however, in the petition annexure-1, an order has been filed wherein the District Magistrate while considering the transfer application moved by the petitioner had categorically directed the District Supply Officer to decide this case even if he comes to the conclusion that the rent of the property in question was more than Rs. 50/- per mensem. 5. LEARNED counsel for the respondent has, however, urged that the District Magistrate had already authorised the Additional District Magistrate to decide the cases of the rental value of more than Rs. 50/- per mensem and as such he could not in one case specifically authorise the District Supply Officer to decide the case of property having rental value of more than Rs. 59/- per mensem. In my opinion, this objection is not sustainable. 6. THE word 'District Magistrate' has been defined in Section 3 (c) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE definition is as follows :- "District Magistrate " includes an officer authorised by the District Magistrate to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of his powers, functions and duties under this Act and different officers may be so authorised in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases, and the District Magistrate may recall any case from any such officer and either dispose of it himself or transfer it to any other such officer for disposal ; Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed to empower the District Magistrate to delegate his power to make or authorise the making of a complaint under Section 33 ". From a reading of clause (c) above it is clear that the District Magistrate can authorise different Officers to decide cases in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases. The District Magistrate has been further authorised to recall any case from any such officer and either dispose of it himself or transfer it to any other such officer for being disposed of. The powers given to the District Magistrate are very wide. The District Magistrate can authorise any particular officer to decide a particular case. There is no prohibition under this clause. In the instant case by the order dated 2-2-1983 which has been attached as Annexure-1 to the petition, the District Magistrate specifically authorised the District Supply Officer to decide the case himself even if he comes to the conclusion that the rental of the property was more than Rs. 50/- per mensem. In my opinion this authority was a valid authorisation authorising the District Supply Officer to decide the case. 7. IN view of the above a further direction given by the revisional court that the application be presented to the proper court, in my opinion, is not a valid direction. 8. SINCE the affidavits in regard to the release have already been filed on record and application for allotment is also pending consideration, in the interest of justice, I think it proper that the revisional court itself should decide both the revisions in accordance with law. So far as the revision against the release order is concerned, the revision shall be decided by the revisional court after ignoring the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. The petition is accordingly allowed, the orders dated 17-4-1986 passed in Civil Revision No. 518 of 1983 and 519 of 1983 are hereby quashed. The revisional court is directed to readmit the revisions to their original numbers and decide the same in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by me above. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.